Torture Memos

[HarveyH42]

**broken link removed**

Finally got around to reading a little on this big Obama announcement last week. Thought it kind of strange, and a little curious about his motives. I find hard to believe that anyone would consider interrogations of suspected terrorist, only months after the 9/11 attack, wouldn't include some form of torture. Sounds pretty mild, compared to the beheading videos on the internet.

Anyway, the torture started int 2002, ended in 2005, and now being made public 4 years later. Is it to show the world, that Americans really are horrible, devious people? Like we aren't hated and mistrusted enough. I imagine the government is involved in much worse things. We have a lot of other problems domestically, and abroad, can't see how this is going to help. The bill for investigating and maybe prosecuting those involved is going to be quite high, doubt it will amount to much in the end.

I don't believe for a moment the the world leaders are going to view this as a positive thing, our new president is going to put an end to all the under-hand activities in America... Yeah, right, like every other government on the planet doesn't have their own little dirty secret projects. I think it shows a weakness, that we aren't going to do anything extreme, to protect ourselves in the future. I also believe it's a huge smoke-screen, to take our attention away from something big and painful coming soon. Wonder what he plans to slip past the American people, during this side-show act.

 

[dknguyen]

I think it shows a weakness, that we aren't going to do anything extreme, to protect ourselves in the future.

So something like invading another country is not extreme?
???
I don't know about you, but I'm not particularily worried this is going to overshadow that.

 

[gramo]

Edit, I'm not going to start an opinionated trail of replies heh

 

[killivolt]

**broken link removed**

Finally got around to reading a little on this big Obama announcement last week. Thought it kind of strange, and a little curious about his motives. I find hard to believe that anyone would consider interrogations of suspected terrorist, only months after the 9/11 attack, wouldn't include some form of torture. Sounds pretty mild, compared to the beheading videos on the internet.

Anyway, the torture started int 2002, ended in 2005, and now being made public 4 years later. Is it to show the world, that Americans really are horrible, devious people? Like we aren't hated and mistrusted enough. I imagine the government is involved in much worse things. We have a lot of other problems domestically, and abroad, can't see how this is going to help. The bill for investigating and maybe prosecuting those involved is going to be quite high, doubt it will amount to much in the end.

I don't believe for a moment the the world leaders are going to view this as a positive thing, our new president is going to put an end to all the under-hand activities in America... Yeah, right, like every other government on the planet doesn't have their own little dirty secret projects. I think it shows a weakness, that we aren't going to do anything extreme, to protect ourselves in the future. I also believe it's a huge smoke-screen, to take our attention away from something big and painful coming soon. Wonder what he plans to slip past the American people, during this side-show act.

They have all their dirty underhanded secrets off camera and is quietly disposed of all the while continue to point at America as the Evil in the World ?

There is building propaganda in the United Nations ( If our country ever falls to anarchy they will have the power to infiltrate our country in order to bring peace.)

When they do they will not follow strict rules of engagement. Go figure.


I won't say we have or haven't but thats just the way the ball bounces. What goes around comes around. History has proven it.


kv

 

[HarveyH42]

So something like invading another country is not extreme?
???
I don't know about you, but I'm not particularily worried this is going to overshadow that.

Invading Iraq wasn't done for the best of reasons, but Sadam was such a fine leader either. He refused to comply with weapons inspections, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Iraq was/is a strong military position in the Middle East, pretty much divides the region. I think that was the main reason for getting involved. Lord help those people, when Obama pulls out the troops, next couple of years. Don't see it happening though, still too unstable, and will revert back to the way it was, most likely worse.

Never cared for Obama. Didn't seem to have much of a past, but spent over $700 million on his campaign, basically somebody bought him the White House. Most of the others didn't spend half of that. So far he's been handing out billions of dollars, but not doing much pay the bill, or anything to make money, very little to save, just more spending.

Anyway, I tend to equate 'interrogation' with torture, just can't imagine getting and information, just by asking politely. I don't know how the chose the detainees as terrorists, and not common citizens. But I do know, that we did have any more 9/11 attacks. Nearly 4,000 people died in just a few hours, don't know the numbers for the London subway attack, or the train in Spain, but seemed to have ended.

From them stories I read, the Waterboarding thing ended in 2005, why bring it up now? Those involved, aren't in office anymore. Wasn't any mention of torture related deaths.

 

[Mickster]

I find hard to believe that anyone would consider interrogations of suspected terrorist, only months after the 9/11 attack, wouldn't include some form of torture. Sounds pretty mild, compared to the beheading videos on the internet.

I tend to agree there Harvey.

Look at some of the books that have been published by e.g. ex special forces personnel, depicting what they endured during training as an example of what to expect from a capture by the enemy. The ones who have actually been captured and were on the receiving end of interrogation techniques, then released with the ability to recount their story, are rather fortunate in comparison to those used as a media tool by organisations from certain countries..

Add to this, the probable fact that those pulled in for interrogation, military or civilian, are likely to have either been caught in the act of planning/carrying out something, or been subject to detailed observation with enough grounds to warrant arrest/capture.

You don't normally see innocent people being pinched for no reason whatsoever. Unless it's an extreme organisation trying to make some point or other to the rest of the civilised world...

 

[dknguyen]

Invading Iraq wasn't done for the best of reasons, but Sadam was such a fine leader either. He refused to comply with weapons inspections, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Iraq was/is a strong military position in the Middle East, pretty much divides the region. I think that was the main reason for getting involved. Lord help those people, when Obama pulls out the troops, next couple of years. Don't see it happening though, still too unstable, and will revert back to the way it was, most likely worse.

Never cared for Obama. Didn't seem to have much of a past, but spent over $700 million on his campaign, basically somebody bought him the White House. Most of the others didn't spend half of that. So far he's been handing out billions of dollars, but not doing much pay the bill, or anything to make money, very little to save, just more spending.

Anyway, I tend to equate 'interrogation' with torture, just can't imagine getting and information, just by asking politely. I don't know how the chose the detainees as terrorists, and not common citizens. But I do know, that we did have any more 9/11 attacks. Nearly 4,000 people died in just a few hours, don't know the numbers for the London subway attack, or the train in Spain, but seemed to have ended.

From them stories I read, the Waterboarding thing ended in 2005, why bring it up now? Those involved, aren't in office anymore. Wasn't any mention of torture related deaths.

I'm actually talking about Afghanistan...has everyone forgotten about that?

 

[colin mac]

A significant percentage of the prisoners that were held at Gitmo were innocnet. There were people held there for 3 to 4 years for having the same name as a suspected AQ member.

 

[killivolt]

Even from past wars prisoners held in vietnam or those who came up missing were just transported into China never to be seen again.

Like I said most war crimes committed by other country's are not seen on public television nor is there any accountability for it.

In democratic society these things become punishable. They have the media hounding their every step. If democracy is gone you will not even hear there cry's. People will just vanish without a clue the only thing you will hear is the silence in the killing fields.

The voices herd loudest are the voices of the lawless and they make noise to silence and overshadow their deeds.


kv

 

[Mickster]

There were people held there for 3 to 4 years for having the same name as a suspected AQ member.

So, if the name "John Smith" appears on a watch-list, should John Smith the accountant, with 2.4 kids and a large mortgage, who simply travels from home to work and back each day, perhaps taking the kids to the park at the weekend, be constantly looking over his shoulder?

Or should it be "John Smith" the dodgy git with a known background, who moves large amounts of AN Fertiliser via a lockup (purely as an example), to be the one looking over his shoulder?

The first example, if placed under observation, could probably be watched closely at first and routines established, along with contacts made. The contacts could also be watched, and in circumstances where his own ring of contacts, along with their ring of contacts arouse minimal suspicion, observations would likely be downgraded.

The second example, if placed under observation, would most likely be under much tighter scrutiny. Why? Because he has some form of backgound and is trading something which constitutes a contributing component toward a very serious potential explosive threat.

His trade may eventually be found to be harmless and his sole customer-base could simply be farmers wishing to buy cut-price products, in order to keep the repo men from the door.

Until he has been checked-out, along with his circle of contacts, and their contacts, both men are equally potential suspects. But, John Smith #2 still carries his past..

I like to think I and my circle of freinds are likened to "John Smith" #1. I, as do most of my close friends, leave home and do a work stint from 08:30 to 17:00. I leave work and do a home stint from around 17:30 to 08:00....At the weekend I may go out and have a few beers with my friends. My circle of friends and I have no interest in participating in 'Peace Protests' (Oxy-Moron in my book, given the tactics used by protesters), 'Religeous-Protests', or any other 'protest' for that matter. We don't actively break the laws laid down by our country, except for maybe creeping over the speed limit once in a while, or peeing up an alley after a few too many beers. We don't stand up in front of an assembly of impressional young minds and attempt to instill a single extreme idealogy, on the contrary...we encourage them to explore the diverse beliefs of other cultures and draw out the best each has to offer.

But, I digress...

The main point I wished to address, maybe it was done above, was that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you aren't likely to get pulled in for questioning/detention....

 

[Roff]

I'm actually talking about Afghanistan...has everyone forgotten about that?

Not I. have you forgotten why the US invaded Afghanistan?

From Wikipedia:

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.

 

[dknguyen]

EDITED BECAUSE IT DIDNT MAKE SENSE:

So wouldn't it seem that the invasion of Afghanistan was a better example of the US defending itself rather than the invasion of Iraq? It seemed odd to me that when I referred to the US invading another country to defend itself, Iraq came up before Afghanistan.

 

[Mikebits]

So wouldn't it seem that the US was defending itself when it invaded Afghanistan more than when it was invading Iraq? It seemed odd to me that when I referred to the US invading another country to defend itself, Iraq came up before Afghanistan.

Can you reword as that does not make sense. People assume Iraq as it is more in the public eye.

Funny that someone who enjoys the blanket of the Monroe Doctrine would hold such sentiments.

 

[dknguyen]

Can you reword as that does not make sense. People assume Iraq as it is more in the public eye.

I'm saying that I think the invasion of Afghanistant was a better example of the UNited States defending itself than Iraq public eye or not, because to be honest I'm not entirely sure of the reason behind Iraq. Yes, there are a a few reasons that can be given, but I'm referring to the actual motivation behind it, not after the fact reasons. Regardless of the reasons now, it seems to me that there might have been better planning if those were the same reasons to begin with, which I'm under the impression that they're not.

I'm not entirely sure what you are implying by refering to the Monroe Doctrine. When did I say I was against the Invasion of Iraq? X being a better example of something, does not equate Y being invalid...poorly planned/executed maybe.

 

[Leftyretro]

Well I tend to stay away from political discussions, because like the discussions over evolution, most people have already decided which 'side' is right and which it 'wrong' and no amount of discussion is likely to cause anyone to change 'sides'. So what is the point? I will only pass on these thoughts.

It's not in question that after the 9/11/01 attacks the highest priority of the past administration was to try and prevent any further attacks on U.S soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist and his strategy was to take the fight to the terrorist when ever possible.

It's a fact that sense 9/11/01 there has not been another successful Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Whether this is because of policy and tactics used or just good luck is anyones guess, however the new administration now carries that burden and if the U.S. is attacked on it's 'watch' there will be hell to pay if it's seen to be because it ceased to remain the #1 priority under the new administration. It would most likely lead to another 4 years and out term like Carter suffered over the Iran hostage taking.

Just saying......

Lefty

 

[dknguyen]

So what is the point?

Knowing how people think. That's always interesting and helps you to know your own mind better as well as everyone else's. Everyone should always be open to what other people think and evaluate it against what they think (there are limits but they are usually pretty obvious and well agreed upon).

 

[Mikebits]

I'm saying that I think the invasion of Afghanistant was a better example of the UNited States defending itself than Iraq public eye or not, because to be honest I'm not entirely sure of the reason behind Iraq. Yes, there are a a few reasons that can be given, but I'm referring to the actual motivation behind it, not after the fact reasons. Regardless of the reasons now, it seems to me that there might have been better planning if those were the same reasons to begin with, which I'm under the impression that they're not.

I'm not entirely sure what you are implying by refering to the Monroe Doctrine. When did I say I was against the Invasion of Iraq? X being a better example of something, does not equate Y being invalid...poorly planned/executed maybe.

Okay, that makes better sense, and I agree with you. I do not understand the Iraq war either. U.S. did have reason to go after AQ.

About my other crack, I was just being huffy...

 

[dknguyen]

Oh hah. I see what you mean by my post not making sense. It's one of those sentences that isn't readable until you already know what the sentence is talking about. Edited.

 

[bryan1]

as those monkeys might come after me best I do a gramo and let things slide. Beside those monkey bites can hurt in the wrong place

 

[HarveyH42]

EDITED BECAUSE IT DIDNT MAKE SENSE:

So wouldn't it seem that the invasion of Afghanistan was a better example of the US defending itself rather than the invasion of Iraq? It seemed odd to me that when I referred to the US invading another country to defend itself, Iraq came up before Afghanistan.

Afghanistan seemed like the source of the problem at the time. Not just terrorist training camps, but opium production, and not to mention weapons sales. The government there wasn't strong enough, or to corrupt to stop any of these things.

We may never know all the reason for going to war in the Middle East, but I think it's something that needs to be done. That whole area has been a war zone for as long as I can remember, and it's spreading. Maybe after a few generation, you sort of get use to it, but I don't want suicide bombers in my neighborhood, or get gunned down while grocery shopping. Several of those countries have nuclear power and weapons. Leadership in some of those countries is taken by force, almost as often as elected by the people. The people over there might be okay with that way of living, but it's not okay to bring it over here to my country. Don't think many other countries outside the region want the daily suicide attacks, or citizen be shot for wearing the wrong color towel on their head.